Not to mention the fact that the "under god" thing was put in during the red scare of the late '50s, when "godless communism" was a thing the congresscritters were afraid of. It's nothing to do with the founders of our republic. In fact, the whole pledge is an early 20th century invention by moralist types.

None of which is remotely relevant to the question of whether managers of public lands have the right and duty to control access and activities on those lands. Law and custom says they do, and USHPA has far more immediate things to work on than to take on a quixotic challenge to the entire government's land management policies.

Back to your regularly scheduled idealistic ranting among yourselves.
MGF

It was that anti communist red scare President Abraham Lincoln who made the connection of “our fathers” and “under God” in the Gettysburg Address:

Fourscore and seven years ago our fathers brought forth, on this continent, a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. . . . that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address was the inspiration and impetus for the change of the Pledge of Allegiance to include "under God". Feel free to look it up.

So why did I mention the reference in my post? I cited the quote for the historic continuity. The Pledge of Allegiance including "under God" is this country’s current official pledge and has been for over sixty four years and reflects the belief of the founding fathers as stated in the Declaration of Independence that our unalienable Rights are endowed to all men by their Creator. The pledge is to the Republic for which it stands including those declarations by our founding fathers, inclusive of the Constitution and the Amendments. The connection is the Gettysburg Address by Abraham Lincoln, the inspiration and impetus.

The passage of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 was just four years after the addition of "under God" to the Pledge by congress. As I have stated, the language congress used in the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 was clear, congress was not granting any right, but recognized and declared the right of every citizen to the use of the airspace, the public domain. The congress of the 1950’s clearly had an understanding of the founding fathers’ political belief system of the origins of human rights.

So when we as citizens make the Pledge of Allegiance:

I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

We are pledging to stand up and defend our fellow human being’s God given rights including our fellow flyer’s right to the airspace as recognized and declared by the 85th Congress. Just because they do not belong to "our club" or "organization" does not mean they do not have the right to fly in the public's airspace.

Membership in a National Free Flight Organization should not be based on coercion, but motivation for membership should be based on mutual benefits, protecting, and promoting the sport including protecting everyone’s declared right to the airspace.

I don’t believe your question is really germane to the thread’s topic. With that thought in mind I will circle back to the central theme.

LOL -- of course you don't. If it's not germane, why the hell did YOU bring it up? You want to make statements but you don't want anyone to point out the flaws.

Of course anyone with a simply grasp of history knows that the "one nation under God" wasn't placed into the POA until the 1950's in the height of the McCarthyism era - forefathers were kinda dead at that point.

Face it -- until some god sticks up for you when you're disciplined for breaking 17,999 (remember ... a principle, not an accusation), you have no "God given right" to traverse the airspace.

What's so bizarre to me is how you get all God breathed about the right to traverse the airspace, but don't seem to be bothered that Part 103 takes that supposed "God given right" and guts the hell out of it.

Did the FAA consult with the gods when they gutted free air travel? Do God given rights end at controlled airspace or 155/254 lbs? By your own presented principle you would think you would be up in arms about these human alterations to god's will.

No, you're all good with it until someone points out that *humans* grant us this permission to fly around in highly modified lawn furniture(in some places and under some circumstances) and humans can (and do) withdraw that permission on a regular basis ... WITH the authority of 103 (and many other 'parts').

JB wrote:LOL -- of course you don't. If it's not germane, why the hell did YOU bring it up? You want to make statements but you don't want anyone to point out the flaws.

We are still waiting.

JB wrote:Of course anyone with a simply grasp of history knows that the "one nation under God" wasn't placed into the POA until the 1950's in the height of the McCarthyism era - forefathers were kinda dead at that point.

Well, I don’t need a simple grasp of history, because I was actually there. When I say actually there, I mean on the National Mall in the mid 1950s and have the pictures to prove it.

It is apparent you did not look up the specific circumstances of the addition of “one nation under God” to the POA and the reference to the founding fathers. You continue to embrace the red scare propaganda. The founding fathers continue to live in this country through the principles and the system they established.

JB wrote:Face it -- until some god sticks up for you when you're disciplined for breaking 17,999 (remember ... a principle, not an accusation), you have no "God given right" to traverse the airspace.

Well again, I have personally traversed 17,999 literally thousands of times in exercising my “God given right” while at the same time enabling tens of thousands of people to exercise their “God given right” to traverse the public domain airspace also. We did it each time safely, respecting everyone else’s “God given right”. It was and is no big deal for me, and I have never been turned down.

JB, with regard to your last post, answer these two questions:

Question Number One: What events prompted Congress to write and pass the Federal Aviation Act of 1958?

Question Number Two: What mission (statement) did Congress establish for the Federal Aviation Administration in the Federal Aviation Act of 1958?

Anyone? Anyone?

Hint Hint: The answer is not because the totalitarian state was granting us rights or taking our rights away.

I seek not to know the answers, but to understand the questions. Grasshopper (Caine)

Anyone know Ben Reese? I just got my favorite email on this topic to date:

Logan,

You are a complete dumb s--- on the same drugs as Bob K.
Who is Bob K? Look into it!

Regarding your retard comments on Fort Funston, you fail to
to do your homework before having an opinion. Making assumptions
just like you do with me and our business.. The big picture escapes you.

No hang glider instructor would sign you off, so your better and know more!
f---ing retard...

The National Park Service do not allow any aviation flight ops anywhere
without a special use permit.. Why don't you mention that.

Fort Funston is a national park... Golden Gate Recreation Area.
Flying ain't riding a bike you retard! You operate a glider under
FAR part 103 and must obey all FAR's just like a pilot with a lic..

Private property owners do not need to let you fly on their land.
USHPA provides insurance to protect land owners and public
from you as a member. USHPA needs a rating system to insure
your proficient as a responsible member.

USHPA, US is member owned and self insured.. That means me!!
I don't want a dumb ass like you messing up what allot of smart
and well meaning people like me have spent a lifetime building
so we can enjoy free flight.

You are a f---ing retard and do not belong in soaring either..

Your dumb ass is outed and I will be posting on the forums
how entertaining your moronic argument is to those who
know the system and relationships you want to burn down.

This is not your 1st screw up. You do it in other areas.
Why do I run into guys like you??

Logan, I can't imagine you have more than a slim few supporters
on HG.org. It will be fun to hear your responses.

Pretty sure you will get run out of there also..

FYI, They know me real well.

Tell them you want to go fly sailplanes..

Tell them you wanted to buy Ben's..

Even if we had got your deposit I would reverse the deal
because you represent an obstacle to flying anything that
carries a person..

I read your complaint and your use of un-informed people on that
site is appalling. There are consequences for lying and misleading
people because you have a personal vendetta with some instructor
who thinks your incompetent as a student pilot..

Instead you choose to fight all of Hang Gliding and all instructors
and force your way around like a misguided crusader..

You are A bad little boy Logan, you need a spanking that lasts for
long while...

My report here is completely a suprise which came from an
unrelated corospondence to HG and PG.

Logan J. Remillard of Salt Lake City, Utah a bootleg hang glider pilot
has launched a PR attack on the Fellow Feathers and USHPA for not
allowing him to Bootleg fly uninsured and not a member of USHPA.

From the Soaring community he bragged about his soon to be filed lawsuit
against GGRNA, USHPA and Fellow Feathers. He attempted to buy a Sailplane
from me, but I shut that down at my financial sacrifice for the betterment of soaring.

Logan belongs in neither place among responsible flyers. My opionon..
The following communications with Logan are offered here for your review and comment.

Please read the link for his formal complaints and how he could not get a hang gliding
instructor to sign him off because something was amiss.. The public comments need
logical responses from our community to level the field with the un-informed community.

Msg from Logan: Aug, 08, 2018
""Unrelated but in the spirit of promoting freedom, I happen to be fighting the private
control of hang-gliding on public land.

I haven't yet sprung for a lawyer, but I have compiled a great deal of evidence to support
the case, there is an IG complaint in with the Department of the Interior and Department
of Transportation. DOI seems to care, DOT hasn't yet responded.""......

...Honestly this guy got under my skin for other reasons not related to the
Funston / USHPA issue.. His comments and attitude about HG and soaring
are what confirmed my feelings and terminated my business with him..

People like him threaten soaring and Hang Gliding and Para Gliding.
If you don't want to join USHPA then fly those places available.
USHPA gives you access to everything..

Your choice, just don't try to burn it all down like Logan is…

People like him are toxic.

Some think the same about me..

Difference is in the heat of conflict, I build things up, not tear them down..

BR stated "but I shut that down at my financial sacrifice for the betterment of soaring."

Your beef with Ben is your problem...it has nothing at all to do with USHPA. He's not an officer
or director of our association, just a member like the other 9000-ish folks. Some of 'em are....
colorful....to say the least.
MGF

DMarley wrote: Ah, the truth is poking out behind all the smoke and haze...... It can't hide forever.

The question is what is the truth?

Hang Gliding is the great metaphor of life. Every time we fly, we try and build the reality model of the sky in our brain with limited sensory inputs. Yah, yes, looking for the lift through the haze and smoke.

Ben Reese wrote: . . . . and not a member of USHPA. . . . . . USHPA, US is member owned and self insured . . . . . That means me!! . . . . . . and well meaning people like me have spent a lifetime building so we can enjoy free flight . . . . . and not my flying site either.

. . . .

Ben Reese would have a lot more credibility if his USHPA membership was not expired by over a year as represented by the USHPA website.

Ben have you been flying Fort Funston with an expired membership after all it is your flying site?

Yah, yes, the truth.

Dave858 wrote:Mark, I think that you guys need to accept the fact that some pilots are not going to join USHPA & are going to fly wherever they want to and there is nothing you or anyone else can do about it. Involving Landowners law enforcement or government agencies in an attempt to "enforce" USHPA / Club policies is going to do nothing but bring the heat down on everyone.

magentabluesky wrote:I agree with Dave. This needs to be worked out within the family of personal free flight.

. . . . . . . .

So sliding down the slippery slope without a mutual resolution on this issue, we could easily see a need for the FAA to issue pilot licensing for Part 103 so the other governmental agencies would have a standard for who is qualified to fly on public lands and who is not.

How do we look out for each-other when one group demands that everybody else comply with *THEIR* demands? I'm all down for supporting an advocacy group, I'm actually a part of 4 different flight clubs, but I have *ZERO* respect for what I've seen out of USHPA. I'm going to fly, I'm not going to let them continue to monopolize public lands. If we can find a way to work together, great.... but this attitude they have of demanding everyone bow to *THEM* in order to keep 103 alive has got to go.

User mini profile

When I, as a director of the SCHGA, voted to create the USHGA out of our local club it was to have a national voice guiding the FAA in formulating rules for hang gliding which became Part 103. We needed a national representation for our fledgling sport.

Farthest from our minds was creating an organization that would become a gatekeeper, through insurance, to many of the best flying sites in the US. We also didn't know how little voice the membership would have in the actual running of the org. The regional directors are a puppet joke, afraid to rattle the cage of the hierarchy.

Two major changes are needed:

1) Make the insurance available to anyone for a policy price just like any other insurance policy, not requiring membership in a private club that can deny membership to anybody the officers don't like and therefore deny that person insurance and therefore deny that person access to some of the best flying sites in the US. Hence USHGA, the arbitrary gatekeeper.

2) actively work, as a national organization, on getting sites open that don't require insurance, especially public sites that are tax payer supported but not limited to that. Inform members on the recreational liability laws of the states. Hold on line workshops on how local flyers can approach a public agency or a private landowner on requesting to fly on the property without insurance. The fewer the sites are that require insurance the better off our free flight becomes.

I recently joined the UHGPGA in planning to fly Point of the Mountain. In reading their on line statements I read where they are worried that non-USHPA members filing law suits could close the sites because those nonmembers had not signed the liability waiver that USHPA requires. Well duh.....all the agency that owns the site needs to do is require that anyone flying there sign a liability waiver to the agency. That's what the County of Los Angeles did for Dockweiler Beach, to open it for no insurance (no USHPA) required for flying on the days the concession (Windsports) is closed. Anyone can get the waiver on line, print it, sign it, and mail it to the county. They will get it back through email with a signed approval. Print it and keep it with you when at Dockweiler and you're good to fly. Certainly, at least, every government owned site should be run this way. USHPA, as representative of HG & PG across America, should be at the forefront of this effort.

Insurance coverage attracts lawyers like rotting flesh attracts flies. USHPA should strive, as a lofty goal, for a no insurance needed flying world.

...
I recently joined the UHGPGA in planning to fly Point of the Mountain. In reading their on line statements I read where they are worried that non-USHPA members filing law suits could close the sites because those nonmembers had not signed the liability waiver that USHPA requires. Well duh.....all the agency that owns the site needs to do is require that anyone flying there sign a liability waiver to the agency. That's what the County of Los Angeles did for Dockweiler Beach, to open it for no insurance (no USHPA) required for flying on the days the concession (Windsports) is closed. Anyone can get the waiver on line, print it, sign it, and mail it to the county. ...

However, a waiver of liability agreement does not necessarily prevent an injured party from pursuing legal action. If you have been injured at an event or activity that required you to sign a waiver of liability before participating, you may still have a legal case depending on the following circumstances: ...

Other legal sites have very similar wording. Merely because a public flying site requires pilots to sign a liability waiver does not mean that the owners of the site won't end up in court with a $10,000 - $20,000 + bill from their attorneys.

Are the owners of these public sites willing to swallow the expenses that are likely required to ensure that each pilot is capable to fly and is responsible enough to be trusted? Probably not. What happens when far more 'pilots' with no form of rating have serious accidents? There will be knee-jerk reactions from the public and the land owners. In this day and age, the public is far more sensitive to traumatic accidents, and the main stream media is so much more efficient in broadcasting bad news.

So carry insurance and guarantee that land owners will get sued and in the case of the RRRG it goes belly up. Dan Poynter once told me that the only parachute company in the US that ever got sued was the only one that carried product liability insurance. I found out yesterday that High Energy Sports, maker of HG harnesses for 30 years and now a big business of making many different types of parachutes for commercial and US government, plus amusement ride harnesses, zip line harnesses, etc., doesn't carry liability insurance. There's a reason for that.

The waiver makes it a quick case in favor of the land owner. Another function USHPA should have is a list of volunteer pro bono HG or PG pilot lawyers who will defend any land owner without charge.

Sorry to disagree but there is no valid argument against land owners getting liability waivers. That's why USHPA requires them - duh.